I don’t see why Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) would think we’d be fooled by this move and drop opposition to smart gun technology. We didn’t have to arrive at this place. I don’t think any gun owners are opposed to the technology in concept, provided it’s the market that’s allowed to choose whether it wins or loses. But Senator Weinberg didn’t want that. She wanted to mandate it, while at the same time exempting police. That’s not something that can be undone, and trust gets automatically restored. We should continue to oppose this technology. We know, not just speculate, we know it will result in politicians mandating it.

11 Responses to “New Jersey Looking to Repeal Smart Gun Law”

Weinberg said her one-model-per-gun shop mandated is designed to protect retailers who want to sell the weapons from backlash.

Hey Weinberg, do you know what would protect retailers from backlash even more? Repealing the bill entirely and letting the market decide.

Keep in mind this woman has a history of racheting down on existing requirements, so we can fully expect the one gun mandate to become a two gun mandate before eventually being an all gun mandate. Here is her comment to amend NJ’s 15 round limit on magazines to be 10:

“Large capacity magazines have no purpose other than to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” said Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) of a bill limiting magazine size passed by the New Jersey Senate Monday

Somebody alert Black Lives Matter, because she exempted police from this restriction! Their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible (presumably black people).

I think what Sebastian is saying, but without coming out and saying it, is that it doesn’t matter if she completely repeals the law at this point. She’ll just re-mandate it once one actually comes out.

A) She willingly bends over for unions
B) Police lives matter more than those of her constituents
C) If the safe guns really worked everyone would use them
D) She doesn’t believe in free market economics

Lets be realistic: in NJ the only guns out in public are those of the PD, and I’m sure LEO firearms make up a substantial portion of the carry guns (legal) in the state. Those weapons should be the first guns that need to be ‘safe’ so only the owner can fire them. Even other democrats should be able to see beyond her shenanigans!

I’m still perplexed how the State can mandate that someone sell a product.

I realize that the SCOTUS has made a mockery of the idea of liberty since we can be compelled to buy something like Obamacare merely because we are breathing, but does it mean that I can be compelled to sell something?

The abuse of the commercial clause is legendary.

What if the gubermint told me tomorrow that I had to sell something I find offensive, like the koran or Mein Kampf (not much difference there).

Of course, these are GUNZ! dealers so their Constitutional rights are null and void. End sarcasm.

One more thing, no matter how good these “dumb guns” might get they will forever and always rely on batteries and electronics which routinely fail. Any manufacturer of this nonsense should face backlash.

Whether it’s that everyone should have ‘the right’ health insurance, or every firearms dealer must stock ‘at least one smart gun’ … this is in violence of something called the fair trading act:

*******
Article 5
The term “monopolistic enterprise” as used in this Act means any enterprise that faces no competition or has a dominant position to enable it to exclude competition in a relevant market.
Two or more enterprises shall be deemed monopolistic enterprises if they do not in fact engage in price competition with each other and they as a whole have the same status as the enterprise defined in the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The term “relevant market” as used in the first paragraph means a geographic area or a coverage wherein enterprises compete in respect of particular goods or services.
********

Under certain circumstances, this law might be construed to say that the government may not impose unfair trade rules to individual merchants.

Okay, it’s a stretch of the imagination (originally conceived to prevent a single merchant from dominating the market), but here it allows a governmental agency to dominate the market and also individual sellers.

Other than in terms of dangerous drugs, etc., I suspect that the intent of the federal legislation was NOT to tell retailers what they MUST provide for sale, but to determine the market balance of what retailers “may” sell.

Once again, the feds poke their dick into Fair Trade and manage to fuck everybody … to the benefit of nobody.

Technically the law only requires that the retailer stock at least one smart gun. They don’t require it to be sold. I’d buy one and stick a price tag of $5000 on it to be sure it always sits on the shelf to stay compliant with the law.